All very much how it is actually.

Hilarious twaddle!

What those optimists who constantly quote projections of "only" a stable population of 9.3Bn forget - or choose to ignore - is that if the planet can only sustainably support a population of a fraction of that figure it's meaningless.

Assuming (as I do) that it's reasonable to think the third world aspires to the standard of living that we do, some have calculated that a sustainable population is only in the order of 2.5 - 3Bn. That's the number of people alive when I was a student! And that figure assumes starting from a sustainable base anyway, not from where we are now, with depleted reserves of oil, ores and energy.

All populations will expand until they crash: technology has allowed humans to outperform the norm but sooner or later the crash will come and be all the worse for it.

Perhaps it's time for WW3, or psycho at the button nuclear terrorist or HIV mark2.

Or do we await natural phenomena like drowning in the bath or cyclonic activity to balance nature?

Actually look at the natural world and it has had a reputation of controlling anomalies.

You forgot pandemics

I did, I did, but I was leaning toward the bath solution.

There's a catch 22 situation here that makes the above outcome look inevitable.

The whole bloody thing is skewed by the concept that improvement can only be derived from expansion and growth.

Yet improvement and the speed of it can come from maintaining an equilibrium that could satiate reasoned desire.

Problem; avarice kills reason.

>>Yet improvement and the speed of it can come from maintaining an equilibrium that could satiate reasoned desire.<<

If I could understand that one I'd agree with it.

Would you like a glass?

For a minute I thought Badge had hijacked your login

Fark.
I'm not touching this stuff anymore.

Hopefully the damage isn't permanent

I know a lot of people that would say it took place long ago.

The same is true of many of us

The definition of population changed in 2006 with the 12/16 month rule which includes permanent immigrants, and temps e.g. 2nd year backpackers, international students, 457 workers, dependents, NZs and even Oz citizens if more returning vs leaving.

If you exclude temps the high population growth rate looks very tepid indeed.

Meanwhile many demographers are contesting the UNs high end growth and predict that population decline may commence within a generation.......

However, in Oz the high end data is used by the anti population growth lobby and bigots to demand lower immigration (from Asia/Africa).....

The real issue is how do we manage both ageing and declining populations.